CHARLES V. STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2004 WHISLER CHARLES, Appellant, ** ** vs. ** CASE NO. 3D03-2175 THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 03-337 Appellee. ** Opinion filed March 24, 2004. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Dennis J. Murphy, Judge. Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Sheryl J. Lowenthal, Special Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General and Vaughn, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before GODERICH, GREEN, and WELLS, JJ. GREEN, J. 1 Melissa G. Appellant, Whisler Charles, appeals the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence, namely, two handguns taken from him by arresting officers. justified in detaining Because we find that the police were Charles and seizing his weapons, we affirm. The content of Charles s mother s report to the police -that she had seen Charles brandishing guns and making death threats three days earlier, that her daughter had indicated that he was doing the same thing on the day in question, and that Charles usually carried two guns -- was enough, given the totality of the circumstances, to give the police reasonable suspicion to Maynard, 783 information mother, justify So. 2d provided gave (Fla. 4th DCA investigatory 226, by officer investigative stop.). 605 an 230 citizen stop. (Fla. 2001) informant, reasonable See (finding i.e., suspicion State v. that defendant s to conduct See also State v. Manuel , 796 So. 2d 602, 2001) ( A tip by a citizen-informant, as opposed to an anonymous tipster, is entitled to a presumption of reliability and does not require further corroboration to provide the requisite reasonable suspicion for a stop. ). When stopped by the police, Charles behaved uncooperatively. He refused to show his hands and kept them hidden under a towel on his lap. Thus, we find that the officer was also justified in conducting a pat-down search of Charles to protect both himself 2 and his fellow officer. See Brown v. State, 358 So. 2d 596, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (finding that police may conduct limited protective search for concealed weapons when officer is justified in believing that individual who is acting suspicious is armed and dangerous to officer or to others). When this search revealed two concealed handguns, the police had probable cause to arrest Charles. Accordingly, the introduction of these weapons into evidence was entirely proper. See State v. Merritt, 519 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (finding evidence seized from a properly conducted pat-down search admissible); Williams v. State, 403 So. 2d 453, 456 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1981) (holding that weapons seized in pat-down search were admissible even though defendant was not under arrest at time). Affirmed. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
